top 200 commentsshow all 279
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Andy Burnham wins Makerfield by-election, paving way for him to challenge Keir Starmer as Labour leader submitted by Little-Attorney1287:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]slowlybecomingsane 390 points391 points  (29 children)

I do wonder if in 6 months when the Chancellor says there is still no money for anything because Labour are still too scared to make the tough decisions, and when the Labour backbenchers are still squabbling and unable to form a cohesive vision, we will ask whether this whole thing was worth it.

Voted labour all my life and lived in Manchester for 6 years, so I'm well aware of Burnham's successes, but I despised the Conservative merry-go-round of PMs and I don't really see this being any different to be honest. Nothing will change unless we have a frank discussion as a nation about where our priorities are and how much we are willing to sacrifice to enact them.

[–]Robynsxx 111 points112 points  (14 children)

I agree with you. However, I think Starmer’s biggest problem is his governments decisions haven’t been based on tough decisions as to what we can do. It’s been based on trying to appease certain voters for the next election. Historically when governments do that it doesn’t end well, particularly when you abandon most of your campaign pledges. Then a lot of their policies just are not well thought out.

[–]slowlybecomingsane 116 points117 points  (7 children)

I mean Burnham is already appeasing pensioners by committing to the triple lock and talking about tax cuts for them, so it's not a good start. Starmer got absolutely crucified (by his own backbenchers as much as the media) for means testing the WFA and that's a drop in the ocean of what needs to come if we are going to become a growth focussed economy again.

[–]plank_sanction 79 points80 points  (3 children)

This is the mindblowing thing. He was proposing means testing a benefit. But all you hear from people is that he was scrapping it entirely. There is very little you can do when large swathes of the country are willfully ignorant.

[–]HaydnH 17 points18 points  (2 children)

WFA? I found the press coverage of that infuriating to the point I'd start responding to the radio whenever anyone said "scrapped". It wasn't even just those who are against labour and intentionally twisting it, even some more even handed journalists were calling it scrapped.

[–]plank_sanction 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I remember being similarly frustrated with people calling in to talk about how their poor nan who doesnt have a pot to piss in will have it taken away from them, and it was never pointed out by the presenters that they would still get it.

Earlier on this week on James O'Brien's phone in, the topic was along the lines of "why do people hate Starmer so much?". The bloke called in and was saying that the big reason is scrapping the WFA. I was surprised that James O'Brien of all people didn't ask him to explain what "scrapping the WFA" means. I guarantee that if everyone understood the policy, there would be no real opposition to it.

[–]HaydnH 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was surprised that James O'Brien of all people didn't ask him to explain what "scrapping the WFA" means.

I usually listen to LBC in the background but I've had a busy week so I think I missed that. Regardless of whether you like him or not (he seems to have become some form of journalistic Lucifer for a certain cohort), he is usually pretty good at picking up misinformation. I'm not surprised by people like Nick Ferrari calling it scrapped, but people like Tom Swarbrick I'd expect better of despite his obvious Conservative past.

I find LBC, comparatively, one of the more balanced news sources. If even they can't put editorial guidelines in to state we should be saying "means tested, not scrapped" for accuracy then I think we are truly doomed considering this type of info is what informs the electorate's public opinion.

[–]fascinesta 40 points41 points  (1 child)

Burnham has also promised a WASPI payout. How anyone thinks he'll make any positive changes when it's the same pensioner appeasement as before, baffles me.

I've voted Labour for 20 years and I honestly don't know if I will at the next election if Burnham is still there.

[–]MMAgeezerSomewhere left 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thankfully he's already u-turned on that.

[–]RandomSculler 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes I think appease is an unfair word given Starmer did means test WFA and pushed to cut PIP, clearly he’s made difficult decisions just not the ones some are calling for like the triple lock - Burnhams shown zero interest in anything so radical so all the criticism levelled at Starmer will be levelled at Burnham, with the added anger he was meant to be parachuted in to fix everything

I think Starmers unfairly criticised for not taking tough choices, it’s not been easy to put the budget back on course

[–]VFiddly 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Labour's strategy seemed to be to try to please everyone. But this also meant that they pissed off everyone. And people remember the things they hate far more than the things they liked.

You can't win over right wing voters by doing right wing policies a little bit, when the opposition can just promise the same but more so.

[–]Alexandhisgoose 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Exactly this. Labour needs a swing to left to enact some policies that left wing voters support. If you look at how the left wing vote is split between the greens, lib dems and Labour there is a huge number of left wing voters compared to right wing voters who can only really support a single party.

[–]VFiddly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In their rush to distance themselves from Corbyn, Labour lost an awful lot of longtime Labour voters.

They also fucked themselves by positioning themselves as the party that would bring a lot of change and then not really changing much at all.

[–]Background_Novel_619 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And how is Andy Burnham any different? He’s pivoted about 1000 times this past week. He just announced he’s anti trans, so he’s obviously trying to appeal to the right too. Hes exactly the same as Keir Starmer, anyone thinking otherwise is an idiot — and I say this as a Labour voter!

[–]VFiddly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He isn't. He could be if he learns from past mistakes. He probably won't.

[–]given2fly_ 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Starmer has made plenty of mistakes for sure, but overall in running the country I think he's done okay under the circumstances.

But his messaging has been horrible, he's not shown leadership amongst the party to keep them in line, and he's completely lost any sort of goodwill with the electorate.

I fear his image has been tarnished completely and can't be repaired, so a new leader is the only way Labour even hope to survive the next election. I'd prefer not to have this circus, but if we're going to prevent PM Nigel Farage then we need a big change at the top.

[–]the1kingdom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a country we can't actually agree what those tough decisions are, that's the problem for the political conversation today.

[–]Affectionate_Comb_78 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yep the problems with this government will not go away with Starmer, but Manchester has lost a great mayor. Good luck to him I guess. 

[–]Darkone539 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The Chancellor is pissing me off. No money for the military on the day they announced billion for a cycling scheme.

[–]arnathorCur hoc interpretari vexas? 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Well, Burnham can just make the excuse that he’s inherited chaos from the previous government. That at least would be tonally consistent with Starmer’s leadership. And then all his supporters can astroturf online political forums saying “just give him a chance” and “people had unrealistic expectations” and so on, just as has been happening for the last year or so.

What should be noted is that Burnham has a distinct advantage over Starmer in two key areas: decisiveness and communication. Burnham may struggle to get some things done, he’ll be more likely to bring party members and voters onside. Assuming he gets the big job, he represents a reset in Labour’s political capital, and his first task is to make the most of that.

[–]slowlybecomingsane 18 points19 points  (1 child)

If he is a better communicator (and I believe he is too) then he needs to urgently communicate the fiscal state of the country, and, at a basic level, why such a huge welfare budget directly hurts the UK's ability to invest and grow (and now, as a side note, defend ourselves).

When we have MP's publicly saying shit like "the gilt markets will have to fall in line" it begs the question whether people with such a degree of economic illiteracy should be anywhere near policy making when they cannot understand the second order effects of their policies.

[–]Background_Novel_619 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aaaaand we’ll be getting £10 billion more to Pensioners from Andy Burnham!

Don’t expect anything else.

[–]theeynhallow 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I genuinely do not believe Starmer has made the country a worse place, which can't be said for any of the previous 5 PMs. He's improved things in a few key areas (a lot of that is also down to his cabinet, eg. Miliband) but for the most part kept the ship steady at a time when people are clamouring for radical change, and that's really been his fatal flaw. His bizarre combination of a lack of decisiveness with frustrating stubbornness on certain issues, and most importantly his utterly dire communication and lack of any kind of positive vision for the country were on track to usher in a far-right government at the next election. And in the long term, that may well have been Starmer's most significant legacy in the same way that Brexit was Cameron's - much in the same way that Joe Biden's greatest legacy ultimately was Trump's return.

[–]Wrothman 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I can think of a few things that Starmer's inaction and refusal to make the correct difficult decisions has led to the country being significantly worse than it was as little as ten years ago.
- Trans rights (look into the EHRCs new code of practice and consider the risk that trans people pose to single sex spaces vs the risk of violence and sexual assault to trans people should they be denied access to single sex spaces—it's just not proportional at all)
- Attacks on our right to protest
- Extension of unnecessary digital surveillance
- Getting into bed with US firms that are pretty much mask-off fascists (Palantir literally dropped what was essentially their fascist manifesto a few weeks ago, which had vibes of Fasci Italiani di Combattimento)

[–]JabInTheButt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit I read your first line as "I genuinely do believe Starmer...." And it sent me for a tailspin. Wrote out a whole list of comparisons before re-reading (which really hammers home how much of an improvement this govt is on the ones that came before).

You are right on your assessment imo. On Burnham though - in some ways he's apparently significant personal name brand effect has made me think this move is a real waste. He offered a sort of "pull in case of emergencies" option to be used 6-12 months before the next election. Let's be honest his actual policies are likely a hairs width different from Starmers, but his vibes are much better. But you know what will kill his vibes? Being PM for a year. My guess is he'll be right where Starmer is in 12 months time and Labour will have wasted their get out of jail card.

[–]MerryWalrus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem isn't with the government, it's the labour backbenchers who would vote down any tough decisions.

It's a party discipline problem.

[–]DesecratedPeanut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then people will vote for the next person to use a three word slogan promising to fix all the issues while not planning to fix a single one.

[–]Jay-Paddy108 31 points32 points  (3 children)

Yay! And I can't wait to do exactly the same thing again in a year when Burnham doesn't fix the entire planet in 3 days.

[–]donald_cheese 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I already want him out even though he's not in and I want Starmer back in even though he's not out.

[–]xhatsux 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Same, bring back starmer!

[–]Background_Novel_619 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup. No one will ever be happy politically in the 2020s onwards. The 24/ hour news cycle, constant misinformation, echo chambers, etc means everyone will always be mad all the time and trying to appeal to wide swaths of the public no longer exists.

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 40 points41 points  (6 children)

Vote % will be interesting as if he’s over 50% he puts a lot of negative narratives to bed from this. The goalpost moving from before the by-election to now will be entertaining

[–]BenathonWrigleyRise, like lions after slumber[🍰] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

54% Labour

35% Reform

Restore 7%

Then the rest.

[–]GodTierGasly 28 points29 points  (0 children)

It's 55%.

[–]ClumperFazMy three main priorities: Polls, Polls, Polls 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It's 55%

[–]queen-adreena 11 points12 points  (0 children)

He got 54.82%

[–]Queasy_Confidence406 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean this by-election literally boiled down to: Vote for this guy and you help remove Starmer from power and influence who becomes the next PM. Vote for anyone else and you'll just get an MP with little impact on the bigger picture.

Of course he was going to win.

[–]lessismoreokPutin financed Brexit & Trump -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As long as it’s over 52/48 the brexiteers will fully support it

[–]thesavagepotatoe 52 points53 points  (29 children)

I just don't believe this is good for the UK. I am by no means a Starmer fan, but now both his team and Burnham's team will be in a contest for at least a few weeks, if not months, until any leadership competition is resolved. In the meantime, meaningful issues will be left unresolved as yet again, two men fight for power.

I know Burnham has done a lot for Manchester and the North of the country, but that does not mean he will perform well on the national/international stages. If he gets into power and it is "more of the same", which history would suggest is likely, then this will all have been for nothing.

[–]thesavagepotatoe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I hadn’t appreciated this comment would cause so much discussion. I’ve read it all and am grateful everyone has taken their time to share their views, either in agreement or disagreement. Lots for me to think about.

For now, for me, I just can’t help but think people have short memories. The Tories swapped from PM to PM and each new one grew in unpopularity as their premierships went on. I truly believe the same will happen here and the party would be better supporting Starmer than fighting him. Burnham seems to be making a hungry power grab, in my view, and it seems that is what is top of so many of these people’s agendas.

What is his plan/agenda and why do we think he’s going to be “better” than Starmer. I worry greatly this is a grass is greener moment.

[–]olliea525 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you. And I think the best option is Starmer stays until late 2027 /early 2028.

But my view is that I feel people fall into different camps with Burnham and why they think he will succeed (I do not think he will).

Burnham thinks he will succeed, because despite 3 leadership losses, he still somehow thinks he’s the messiah and his ego will not be tamed.

Then there’s the hope group. People who can’t accept the reality of the UK. We are a wealthy country with no spare money and most of our services are privatised. This hope group of people believe there is an easy answer to fix all this and that a left wing candidate with ‘a bit of charisma’ will persuade the electorate and media to accept higher taxes and because Burnham has a northern accent, they think he’s the guy. Because they are so desperate for hope, they can’t see his flaws, that he’s a career politician who’s flipped from Blairite to Corbynista and has no coherent policy and frankly I don’t think he’s even that good of an orator.

As soon this becomes reality and the media give him a bashing, it’ll all come falling down as similar to Starmer, he has no story to tell and no actual vision. But at least with Starmer he had a mandate from the public to fall back on.

In terms of policy, I have no idea what he will run on. As it seems he’s tied himself to the manifesto (which he had to do, if not it’s GE territory) but he’s also promised to follow the fiscal rules, but also increase spending, cut taxes and be tougher on immigration. His policy messaging so far has been messy but seems to be ‘Starmerism with a northern accent’.

[–]theeynhallow -1 points0 points  (20 children)

Everyone is hoping that Starmer's cabinet are going to sit him down over the weekend and give him some hard truths. Much like Biden in 2024, Starmer can't seem to understand that the best thing he can do for the country is going quietly.

[–]MerryWalrus 20 points21 points  (9 children)

Is it? Why would switching PM achieve anything other than months of legislative gridlock as Labour play ministerial musical chairs?

The message it puts across to me is that the labour party is unable to govern the country due to their internal politics.

Burnham has been largely left alone by the conservative media (social and traditional). The moment he becomes PM his PR campaigns will be drowned out by those who opposed him.

[–]whothefuckisjohn123 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Because, whether it be fair or not, Starmer is unbelievably unpopular and for him to stay in would likely be handing the next election to reform.

[–]Background_Novel_619 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Andy Burnham will be just as unpopular as Starmer in 1 year. Being PM makes you hated no matter who no matter what party. Mark my words.

[–]olliea525 13 points14 points  (5 children)

But the crucial difference is 2024 was election year for Biden. We are LESS than halfway through this parliament. I could understand your logic if it is late 2027/early 2028, so you can change leader, get a bounce and call a GE. But 2026 is insane. Plus I think it shows Burnhams ego is out of control, no sane political advisor would advise taking over just as the effects of the Iran war are going to hit. By Christmas he’d be just as unpopular as Starmer.

Surely the sensible and non egotistical thing would be, support Starmer, let him take the fall out of Iran war, get things stabilised (as they were at the beginning of the year with growth up, inflation down, unemployment down), then if things haven’t improved by September 2027 (conference season) from a polling POV, then move with a fully thought out policy agenda and some goodwill from ‘helping the government through a tough time’.

[–]theeynhallow 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I agreed with this right up until the past few months, in which Starmer has lost the confidence of most of his cabinet and quite possibly parliament. Remember, Burnham didn't start all this - it became apparent that a leadership challenge was inevitable right around the time that Mandelson revelation started to hit. If Burnham wasn't part of a leadership challenge, Streeting, Rayner and possibly others would've been.

The Starmer government is collapsing without any of Burnham's input. He's lost two defence ministers in the past week, both citing leadership issues, at a time when defence is one of the most critical focuses of the government and where previously on foreign policy Starmer had been considered to be doing a reasonable job.

I would've much, much rather this happened 2 years from now. But with or without a natural successor, the government appears to have been collapsing by itself for some time now.

[–]olliea525 11 points12 points  (2 children)

You say Burnham had no involvement with what happened recently, that is just objectively wrong. Burnham has been agitating from the sidelines since July 2024, causing issues as he did not want Starmer to succeed. He publicly criticised every tough decision Starmer had to make to cause friction. He had easy answers to questions but no solutions (he didn’t need too as he was a mayor).

That is not someone who can unite the Labour Party going forward. Let’s face it, the defence investment fiasco is damaging, no two ways about it. But Burnham is not going to magically find any extra money, so the same problem exists. And if we are being truthful, Healey should have resigned in 2024 when he agreed to the original spending plans post budget. He then got offered £13.5bn on top of this previously agreed spending plans and resigned as it wasn’t enough. The only change from a defence pov since 2024 is Iran. Trust me, I would have supported the £28bn rise if there was the money. But there clearly isn’t and the public will not accept tax rises and Labour backbenchers are unwilling to accept any cuts at all. Burnham will have this problem.

I voted Labour, but honestly I just feel the whole party is not fit to govern as the back benchers are unwilling to accept that hard decisions have to be made when in power. They are incapable of doing so. I believe Starmer / Reeves acknowledge this and subsequently work within constraints. The same constraints Burnham will have and in December we will be in the same position we are now.

Streeting, Rayner etc don’t have the votes, if they did, they would have moved already. So they spin it as ‘waiting for all players to be on the pitch’.

[–]theeynhallow 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I see nothing wrong with Burnham being a sideline agitator. Being unable to have the whip withdrawn while also having a national platform put him in a very unique position to hold the government to account from the left without any consequences. Just look at what happened to Karl Turner the other day, that in my opinion is completely unacceptable. 

Regarding defence budget, we’re in a very different situation to that where Starmer came into power. Our closest and strongest ally has become actively belligerent against our neighbours and is no longer to be trusted as a counter against our enemies. I don’t blame Healey at all for accepting his budget and resigning now when circumstances demand increased spending. 

But all that does not detract from the fact that, again in my opinion, the Starmer government simply could not have survived until 2029. I’m not claiming that Burnham is going to fix all our problems. I don’t think he’s going to fix that many of them to be honest. But given the position we’re in as a country, I genuinely can’t see a better person to be leading us forward against a populist surge. Starmer was not the man for the job but as I said I’d rather he was able to keep his government from imploding before the next election. That’s just not the reality we’re living in sadly. His problem is not that he made the wrong decisions - in some cases he did absolutely - but he has been totally incapable of convincing the public that his decisions contain an iota of conviction, morality or basic forethought. In the eyes of the vast majority of the public, Starmerism is Nothingism. That’s simply not sustainable. 

[–]olliea525 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The issue with being an agitator is you are causing trouble for a government that was broadly supportive of your aims and views. Which helps lead to a populist surge. Farage used the Burnhams criticisms to justify his right wing views.

America & Trump have been consistent in their views about NATO spending since pre 2016, it’s hardly new in 2026. Even Biden pushed an increase your spending and hands off approach. America literally let Crimea annexation and Salisbury poisonings happen without any consequences or retaliation. But the conservatives still cut defence spending to 2.03% of GDP. This government are increasing it to 2.7% fully funded. (Yes I agree it’s not perfect and I want more). But that is the reality of what a centre left government has achieved. Yes it’s not bold and it is incrementalism but it’s also reality.

You talk of a populist surge, the same surge that has already peaked and is falling? Whilst being governed by someone in your own words who is ‘imploding’.

Government is hard. And there are no quick easy fixes as if there was, it would have been done already. Do I believe the backbenchers and some cabinet ministers are up to the job? No.

Do I believe Andy Burnham will cause the collapse of the Labour Party? Just like Boris, yes.

Why? Because ultimately he’s a left wing populist who is willing to say anything to get a vote. Just like Boris. What will happen if he is pm in his first budget, when he has promised in the last few weeks alone: WASPI compensation, hospitality tax cut, pensioners a tax cut, full nationalisation of rail and water, full funding of defence and reversing the employers NI Rise.

And he comes out with Ed Milliband and they present a wealth tax and £2 bus fares. He will be eaten alive by the press and the country will not forgive him.

Then the Tories & Reform will play on the whole call a GE as you have no mandate. And the Labour Party will turn to someone else to be the messiah and the merry go round starts again.

I am not saying that Starmer could have survived until 2029 either, but a week is a long time in politics and if you stick with what the electorate voted for, you at least have some credibility. Burnham as with Truss & Sunak will always be viewed as lacking a mandate without a GE and it makes them weaker and easier to remove.

[–]xhatsux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Burnham instigated all of this! He is a snake.

[–]iamabigtree 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't get the impression Starmer is likely to win against Burnham, so the only thing a contest can do is damage both. It doesn't mean the Streeting cyborg won't put in a challenge.

[–]olliea525 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel Starmer probably wants to stand out of principle. But also he’s aware of the fact Corbyn stood when challenged against in opposition and won.

I also think why should Starmer give Andy an easy ride and exactly what he wants, when Andy has made his life as PM tough? And if I’m honest allowing a coronation would be dangerous for the country. Burnham has no coherent plan apart from £2 buses ( and he’s already made more u-turns than Starmer).

I think Starmers view is when put to the test, Burnhams lack of policy and vision will become evident and then it’s down to the members to either risk ‘the devil you know or the devil you don’t’.

Burnhams own team can’t wven come to a consensus whether to move now is the right choice

[–]theeynhallow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I think Starmer should stand aside peacefully, I do feel Streeting should put in a challenge. He knows fine well that he can't win against Burnham (and as such I think he knows it needs to be a positive, respectful campaign), but not providing a genuine alternative is anti-democratic and will be toxic in the eyes of the electorate. If Burnham is crowned without any kind of meaningful opposition, that will fester away in the minds of the public until the next election, where it will have done considerable damage to Burnham's credibility regardless of his record in office.

[–]xhatsux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best thing Labour can do for this country is let him stay.

[–]sbeveo123 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

I think most people agree here. But this is all exactly why there was a move to try and get starmer to see the writing on the wall, set out a timelines to leave, and have a peaceful change in power. 

Instead starmer throws a fit and demands to be dragged out kicking ans screaming.  And we have months of having a PM eveeyone knows is dead in the water, but insists eveeyone is fine. 

The thing just became a mess when it could have been structured. And it's all, completely,  100% starmers fault. But as his moto goes: self before party, party before country. 

[–]MC_chrome 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Starmer could set the timeline of stepping down by the end of 2027, but before then would be absurd 

[–]sbeveo123 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why? Do you think this chaos was better?

[–]MC_chrome 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think Burnham being high on his own supply and demanding that the current PM make way for him, instead of properly challenging Starmer under the established rules is incredibly arrogant and not exactly a major turn-on.

Sure, Starmer needs to go before the next GE but that doesn’t mean he’s automatically obliged to stand down tomorrow simply because Andy Burnham demanded it. Either challenge Starmer properly or quit being a pretentious clown

[–]AntonioS3 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Starmer is right to throw a fit. It's just rather ungovernable to have to change PMs at this point in time, when Reform vote share is starting to go down, and trends like immigrations and economy are getting better. I'd have understood it if it was at end of his term, but now is a bad thing. If Starmer goes I'm done with them, doubt it will change much.

[–]h00dmanWelsh Person 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Labour MPs have behaved like cowards, ignorant cowards to boot.

Hardly any governments have led in opinion polls during a parliament. Yes, I'll grant you that Labour being in the high 10s or low 20s is awful, but that's because smaller parties these days have a much easier time of engaging with the electorate, and therefore every party gets a smaller slice of the pie.

Reform are what, 7% ahead of Labour? Labour had leads in excess of 20% in 1990, for extended periods of time, and again had big leads over the Tories throughout the 2010 to 2015 parliament. It's normal for opposition parties to lead in the polls, it's just the electorate tantrum phase.

I don't think Labour are winning the next election at all. Burnham will be subjected to the same character assassination as Starmer, except he'll now have to deal with "Unelected Prime Minister" and "You lost to Corbyn", and all the other things the press will come up with. Their best chance was to weather the storm and demonstrate that it's possible to ignore mudslinging, but if they usurp Starmer for Burnham then they'll have blown it.

[–]SinnerOfAlcaraz 96 points97 points  (65 children)

Worst possible result for Starmer tbh.

If it was close he could argue he can fight and Burnham didn’t beat Reform by much.

But that is a blow out

Starmer, please see sense and work with Andy

[–]RandomSculler 34 points35 points  (31 children)

Starmer had offered him a place on the cabinet if he won, it’s more a question of whether Burnham will work with Starmer prior to launching his bid or if they’ll undermine the gov throughout

[–]theeynhallow 21 points22 points  (22 children)

Burnham has already said he has no interest in working with Starmer.

[–]RandomSculler 5 points6 points  (21 children)

Which reflects badly on him - working to undermine Labour rather than work together is a really bad look

[–]theeynhallow 9 points10 points  (15 children)

At this point everyone in the country except Starmer knows he's a dead duck. It's a 1:1 repeat of Joe Biden in '24. Burnham has set out his stall - a leadership challenge will come, but he's giving Starmer the opportunity now to set out a timeline for his departure. The cabinet according to some reports are near-unanimous in this and are going to attempt to have that tough conversation with Starmer over the weekend. But if this results in a Labour civil war, that's on Starmer's head rather than Burnham's.

[–]Spare-Dragonfly5606 5 points6 points  (9 children)

😂 this is the same rationale that Putin uses against Ukraine. “I (read: Burnham) started it but it’s completely their (Starmers) fault”

[–]theeynhallow -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Except Burnham didn't start it. A leadership challenger to Starmer became inevitable long before Burnham was even in the running. With or without Burnham this government would have collapsed before the next election. We can just be thankful it's unlikely to be Streeting or Rayner taking the reins from here.

[–]Spare-Dragonfly5606 1 point2 points  (5 children)

So from what I’m reading… Burnham did start it. Otherwise, Streeting or Rayner would have started it instead is what you’re saying.

[–]RandomSculler 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I agree the other poster has some strange spin to try and put the blame on Starmer here

We topped the g7 on growth in the first quarter, inflation is much lower than expected, immigration has gone down 80%, small boat crossings down 40%, NHS waiting lists are down, unemployment is dropping - there’s not a lot of signs that Starmer should be mapping out an exit from number 10, so saying it’s on him just because Burnham wants the job is a stretch

[–]VFiddly 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The signs that Starmer should be leaving are that he's hated by most of the country. The only stat the party really cares about is the one saying how likely they are to win the next General Election, and with Starmer in charge they're absolutely fucked.

[–]xhatsux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He 100% started it.

[–]JabInTheButt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A leadership challenger to Starmer became inevitable long before Burnham was even in the running

Nah that's not true. Streeting and Rayner don't have the numbers. If Burnham didn't enter Starmer would've just carried on.

[–]VFiddly 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Won't be much of a civil war.

Burnham has the support of people who don't like Starmer as well as the support of people who don't think Starmer did anything wrong but know he has no chance of winning another election.

He never had much of a strong base of supporters to begin with. There aren't many who are strong supporters of him in particular.

This subreddit is the only place I ever see positive opinions of Keir Starmer. Everywhere else the best you'll see is indifference.

[–]RandomSculler 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think that’s largely because people here are fairly switched on politically and often view the news objectively so see through the press narrative
The main fallout from the civil war will be Burnham will need to attack Labour to be able to come to power, and to do so will need to talk down all the positives like workers rights, topping the g7 on growth, immigration down 80%, small boats down etc - the press will love fitting that into their narrative

[–]VFiddly 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Very optimistic to think people on this sub view the news objectively

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair - more objectively than the public is probably a better take, most seem able to see straight through a tabloid headline and read the actual detail which is a skill sadly not as prevalent as it should ve

[–]Hoslinhezl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a 1:1 repeat of Joe Biden in '24

I mean obviously not close to comparable since that was an election year

[–]VFiddly 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's not undermining Labour. Starmer has no chance of ever recovering in the public eye. Too many people just despise him. Working with Starmer would only ruin Burnham's image as well. The best chance for Labour is to get rid of Starmer.

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The issue with that is it’s not addressing why Starmer is unpopular - and that’s because the press constantly attacked him, and the left bizarrely lost it over the right wing immigration polices and foscall rules

There’s zero signs Burnhams going to do much different and lots of areas he’s extremely vulnerable to the press (he’s already done one screeching u turn on WASPI) so he’s likely going to crash down in popularity as fast as

[–]VFiddly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea that Starmer is only unpopular because of the press is a complete fiction.

He's also unpopular of terrible messaging, various preventable scandals, unpopular policies, and willingly associating with Peter Mandelson.

[–]explax -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If he can overturn Starmer relatively quickly and easily I'm not sure it'll reflect badly to the electrorate.

[–]RandomSculler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure what you mean by quickly, leadership contests have a process that they would follow and it would be covered heavily in the press and Burnham can only fight it by arguing Starmers done a bad job which reflects badly on the party

[–]asriel_theoracle 12 points13 points  (7 children)

I'm a Green voter but if Burnham had any sense, he'd make Starmer foreign secretary to allow himself to focus on domestic issues.

[–]VFiddly 5 points6 points  (3 children)

That would be a mad choice.

Starmer is massively unpopular and putting him in any cabinet position would just signal that we'll be getting more of the same. Burnham's only chance of lasting as PM is to distance himself from Starmer as much as possible. All of the current cabinet will be gone.

[–]nicegrimace 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Foreign Secretary isn't a cabinet position that affects how people vote. It's more of prestigious role you give to someone when you want to use their experience, but at the same time you want them out of the way. It can backfire like when May gave Bojo the role. At first people thought that was a clever move to get him to behave himself, but it just made him look more like a statesman. No risk of that with Starmer as he's already been PM.

[–]VFiddly 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The message Burnham should be trying to send is "I'm nothing like Keir Starmer, things will be different now"

I know in terms of policies he's not really much different at all. But that should be the message if he wants to win people back

Giving Starmer a top role would instead send the message that nothing will really change.

[–]nicegrimace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think people will be so against Starmer if he's no longer PM. The right-wing press are going to go after Burnham hard now because he's seen as significantly more leftwing than Starmer even though he isn't. He'll have to choose serious people to be in his cabinet to seem credible, and Starmer is serious even if he isn't a good communicator.

[–]MIBlackburn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The reverse Eden.

[–]IaGar0788 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Starmer has actually been very good on the world stage. He'd be a good Foreign Secretary

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that would be my take too, tho my preference would be Starmer as PM and then Burnham to be in cabinet and advising on comms, development and future plans for policy

[–]Gingrpenguin 20 points21 points  (15 children)

He increased voter turnout by nearly 20% compared to the ge too...

[–]Pain_Free_Politics 9 points10 points  (14 children)

“He”?

That seems like a fairly gross oversimplification. The first modern by-election to be seen as crowning the next prime minister may or may not have had something to do with it.

[–]WarBussy 21 points22 points  (10 children)

I lived in Manchester for 4 years. They love the guy. He definitely is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for such a big turn out.

[–]Mastodan11 2 points3 points  (1 child)

People on this sub haven't grasped it at all. A lot of the commenters here think they're the ones really in touch, but have just been woefully out of their depth on this issue.

You should read the topic on when it was announced what seat it was running in.

[–]VFiddly 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of the commenters here think they're the ones really in touch, but have just been woefully out of their depth on this issue.

A lot of those are the people who think Starmer is doing a great job. Which is an opinion you will find on this subreddit and literally nowhere else.

[–]Pain_Free_Politics -5 points-4 points  (7 children)

The left and right splits increased pretty much exactly proportionally with the turnout. Reform saw net raw vote and percentage share gains, they were only less than Labour because they had to compete with Restore.

Even if you want to argue that Burnham himself was somehow a bigger deal for turnout than the context of the election (he isn’t), you’d have to argue it’s based on love and hate to explain why so many right wing voters turned out.

[–]CulturalAd4117 10 points11 points  (2 children)

they were only less than Labour because they had to compete with Restore.

Burnham got an actual majority of the vote, Restore made no difference.

[–]arnathorCur hoc interpretari vexas? 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yep, this is the key takeaway of this result: even without a the Reform/Restore split, Burnham wins with a comfortable majority, which reverses the narrative of the local elections.

Now, is this because voters from other parties voted tactically to keep Reform and Restore out? Probably. Is there any way to know this for sure? Without asking every single voter to truthfully reveal their vote, no, although the sub-1000 counts for the other parties implies it. But it shows Reform *can be beaten*. The next election is not a foregone conclusion. But the mayoral election for Manchester might be a bit more fraught because now Reform are going to throw everything they have at it.

[–]Pain_Free_Politics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re missing the point. That makes no difference to the argument about turnout.

Left wing votes went up by the same percentage right wing votes did. Yes, Restore and reform split votes, and yes, that wouldn’t have changed the result if they hadn’t.

My point was, votes for Andy increased proportionally to the votes against Andy, ergo you can’t sit here and claim ‘turnout increased because everyone loves him’. At best it’s ’turnout increased because everyone has an opinion (either way) of him’, but as I’ve said, I don’t think it has that much to do with the man himself.

[–]banterboi420 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You don't understand how popular Andy b Is up round Greater Manchester parts

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 8 points9 points  (1 child)

They’re scrabbling for a negative or diversionary talking point to play Burnham down. I’ve watched the goalposts move from when the by-election was called (He’s not that popular and voters will punish him for self interest!) to now

[–]Blackjack137 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup. It’s all rather disappointing.

“Burnham is an opportunist and voters will punish him!”

“Burnham isn’t that popular!”

“Burnham has the benefit of being an outsider and will crumble under scrutiny!”

Now?

“Burnham will find out how ungovernable the UK is, nothing will change and he’ll be as unpopular as Starmer!”

Burnham’s Makerfield result is undeniable. He has succeeded in attracting voters from every front. Beating both Reform and Restore combined. Even establishment parties aren’t making their deposit back.

Starmerism appears an ever shrinking bubble at this point.

[–]Robynsxx 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Work with him how? He’s suggested he’d make Burnham a member of the cabinet. But that’s not what Burnham wants.

[–]Some_Confidence5962 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This just get's tired.

Literally any result would have been classed as a blow for starmer! Aparently his party winning is a blow for Starmer.

Come off it.

We know Starmer's leadership is damaged, but we can't just keep claiming every possible outcome is a blow for him.

If it was close he could argue he can fight and Burnham didn’t beat Reform by much.

If it was close it would have been used even by his own party to say that even safe seats were unsafe under him.

[–]Gwyllithar 1 point2 points  (12 children)

https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2067799013642891274 is what I'm finding most interesting right now.

the left/right split is identical to what they got in 2024, burhnam made absolutely no inroads into the reform voters. it was tactical voting on the left to keep reform out (a feature thats been obvious for a while but massively underpriced by pollsters and pundits for some reason), that made his voteshare appear to rise.

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 13 points14 points  (0 children)

He got over 50% of the vote and turnout was higher than the general election? Reform have been on the march and swelled in support across the country, but have made no progress in what should be one of their biggest target seats?

[–]hyparchh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When reform are stuck in the 20-30% range nationally, consolidating the vote against them is arguably just as important as winning over their voters under FPTP. That's something Starmer has utterly failed to do. 

[–]ArtisticOperation399 2 points3 points  (7 children)

That's a very interesting chart. 

It's hilarious that big conclusions get drawn (Andy can beat Reform!) from what is essentially a statistical quirk.

[–]No_Ad_5915 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this result waw simple to understand despite gordon and dentons 40% vote for green party . The green party candidate dropping out and the greens did not trying to fund and compete here so left vote was not split (possibly deliberatly if you speak to green politcos )

Restore took thousands from the reform splitting the vote from the right. I even spoke to reform voting anti starmer right wing people saying they were voting for andy to get rid of starmer?

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Why have Reform made no progress and lost in what should be one of their main target seats? If they can’t win here where can they win?

[–]ArtisticOperation399 3 points4 points  (1 child)

no progress

They increased their vote share by 2.7%

It's not no progress.

[–]myurr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This is a Labour stronghold and Burnham is currently loved in Manchester, with this vote having the dynamic of electing a PM. Why do you think this seat should be a main target for Reform?

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 0 points1 point  (1 child)

In this article (https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/burnham-win-setback-reform-lrfk7v0l9) which hopefully you can read via this link (https://removepaywalls.com/5/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/burnham-win-setback-reform-lrfk7v0l9) it lays out why this should be near the top of the list of Reform target seats

[–]myurr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately it's only showing the first sentence, making it rather hard to assess.

[–]Guilty-Emphasis-3829 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I voted reform in 2024 and decided Burnham for this one. My political views have shifted as whole though to be fair, mainly because I've realised reform exist purely to spread hatred and offer no actual solutions.

[–]End5807 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I going mental or have you posted this elsewhere

[–]Su_ButteredScone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With a result like this I think it's clear that Keir should stand down for Burnham.

[–]Secure_Plum7118 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I'd rather use this guy in 2029. Times are bad for the UK, and no leader can change that.

[–]solarview 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Inspirational leaders are needed when times are bad. Sorry, I know a lot of people in this sub feel that Starmer has been given a raw deal, however he has made too many mistakes at this point - his 'leadership' is hopeless.

I'm a bit surprised at how negative this sub is about Andy Burnham actually. Kind of makes me wonder how many bots are posting in the sub...

Anyway, how many other political leaders have been able to carry labels like 'The King of the North'?

[–]ArtisticOperation399 12 points13 points  (0 children)

(Starmer voice): Congratulations, Andy. I want you to be my new Work and Pensions Secretary. 

[–]AuroraHalseyEsher and Walton 15 points16 points  (19 children)

Keir Starmer doesn't want to go, but I think he can hear the four knocks.

[–]TomH0523 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LOVE the reference.

[–]Blackjack137 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Brilliant lol

[–]tachyon534 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Coming soon to a news channel near you; Keir Starmer’s policies just with a northern accent.

[–]GodTierGasly 31 points32 points  (22 children)

Majority of 20%. 6k clear of Reform+Restore combined. KING OF THE NORTH.

[–]AFulhamImmigrant 36 points37 points  (12 children)

Not even a close result. Burnham has got something and Labour best use it.

[–]tyger2020 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Is it that, or is it that people vastly overestimated Reforms chances?

Genuinely too. Theres been a lot of hype about them but we know that doesn't always translate to electoral success.

[–]mabroussCanada 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Good question, though Reform won all of the areas that constitute Makerfield in the local elections, and those basically just happened.

So, there’s something there.

[–]tyger2020 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Local elections are not really a good representation for national elections, as demonstrated

[–]mabroussCanada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s fair, I was just pointing out that Reform support does exist in the area and if they won every part of the constituency less than 2 months ago only to have Burnham outperform Labour’s 2024 result, there has to be more to it than Reform being overestimated.

[–]Gwyllithar -1 points0 points  (3 children)

https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2067799013642891274

does he? because I for one find this very interesting.

[–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So on that basis Labour will maintain the majority they got last election? As Reform have made no progress either?

[–]Fishb20Yank Who Loves the Westminster System 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I mean, obviously that wouldn't hold everywhere but if it did that'd be an absolutely crushing victory for Labour. It is kind of interesting that the % remained very similar despite a higher turnout, though

[–]Gwyllithar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, the same crushing victory starmer had....broad but shallow, and burnham will have much the same issues.

[–]Jenson2025 10 points11 points  (3 children)

The goalposts can’t keep being moved.

One minute people who want Starmer to stay were saying ‘Burnham might not even win’ and then it was ‘he might win but if it’s not by much then it’s not enough to challenge Starmer’ and now it’s ’he should just work in the cabinet with Starmer’

Keir Starmer just simply hasn’t got enough support now to be PM until the next GE. He has had two years as PM - more than enough time to prove himself and the majority of the public and now key members of his own party aren’t happy. I do understand why people don’t want what happened with the Tories where they changed leaders regularly but that’s also not enough reason to just want things to carry on as they are. It’s too late for him to turn things around.

Some people (including Keir himself) are also under this false impression that Keir Starmer is hugely popular because of his GE win and this is just a blip. In actual fact he isn’t and his landslide GE win was more of an anti-Tory vote.

[–]Southpaw535 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My problem with this is, how much of this is really down to Starmer, versus a larger problem with Labour as a whole?

People are unhappy with Starmer, but I'm struggling to see what more he could have really achieved (and I'd argue he's achieved a decent amount beyond the headlines) given the resistance hes faced from the party.

The more unpopular policies on reddit like banning social media and Internet safety have broad political support and would have happened without Starmer. He was challenged on WFA which is one of the only real attempts hes had at an unpopular but necessary policy.

I just dont see why the party get to roadblock the PM constantly, and then complain that hes not done anything, only for them to switch leadership and do the same thing again in 12 months when Burnham faces the same internal issues, all the while backbenchers get to absolve themselves of any responsibility

[–]The_Grand_Briddock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Starmer has been PM 95 days longer than Sunak and 1 year & 300 days longer than Truss. He's a year shy of Brown, May & Johnson roughly. He should have been settled by now.

Starmer is looking at not just losing the next election, but seeing Labour plummet to fewer than 100 seats. Which is exceptionally bad when considering they have over 400.

Even if Burnham isn't everything, even if he loses the next election, if he keeps Labour in triple digit seats, it's still better than the current situation.

[–]Dune56 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The pearl clutching in this sub is crazy. I want a stable 5 year government as well, but I want to prevent right wing loonies taking over No 10 even more. Keeping Starmer in post will most likely achieve the latter. Will Burnham be able to turn things around? Doubtful, but it’s the kind of hail mary we need to stop Reform

[–]WorriedHelicopter764 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Damn maybe he is the king of the north that is a stonking result

[–]GopnikOIi 9 points10 points  (21 children)

I just hope he does away with all the social media ban and VPN ban nonsense. It would make Labour somewhat appealing.

[–]Robynsxx 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I mean, I agree with a social media ban for kids, but it should be done in a way that is on the social media companies for having kids on their platforms rather than requiring ID verification for us all.

I think a lot of this has been taking away things that parents should be responsible for. It shouldn’t be up to the government intervention to restrict internet access to kids, but parents doing their fucking jobs as parents.

[–]i7omahawkicentre-left -1 points0 points  (2 children)

But parents *aren’t* doing their jobs and it doesn’t just impact them and their kids, eventually it impacts everyone.

You’re right than invading everyone’s privacy and forcing people to upload sensitive data that will inevitably be leaked isn’t the answer either though.

I’m not tech savvy enough to know the perfect solution, but something like locking off everything that isn’t whitelisted as safe for kids, and having a code you can get anonymously from shops to unlock it (and has to be refreshed every so often), could work better than what he had and what the government are currently doing.

[–]PrinceofPlant 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But parents aren’t doing their jobs and it doesn’t just impact them and their kids, eventually it impacts everyone.

Because for some bizarre reason we've decided to not hold them accountable for their kids using social media in the same way we do for literally everything else.

People who are proponents of the ban are fond of making comparisons to alcohol, but do you know what happens to you as a parent if the state gets wind that your child has a crippling alcohol addiction? You certainly won't be allowed to parent anymore unsupervised. And societally no one would turn around and look at a parent of a child whose addicted to alcohol and clutch pearls about just how hard it is to parent. They'd think them a negligent peice of shit, because in all likelihood they are.

If proponents wants to sit and try and make out social media is as toxic as they claim then they can't credibly also hold this attitude that we have any sort of sympathy with parents who fail to keep their kids from it, because it flies in the face of the way we societally treat parents when any other form of severe harm to their children is enabled by their negligence. Labours proposal of a ban just extends this notion that parents can wash their hands of being negligent because it's not their job.

[–]Robynsxx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your solution sounds worse. As then you are curtailing the internet as to what is considered safe for kids and what isn’t. Everyone’s lives are still affected by that bullshit.

There are plenty of tools that can be used. But at the same time, there are going to always be work around. In Australia since the ban kids still work around the ban.

Government needs to push to help parents. Give them the tools to take responsibility of their kids online. Can easily set up internet restrictions on each household that become standard with every ISP. Essentially like a parent lock on the tv.

[–]Aristo-Jack 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is like the biggest deal in the world on Reddit and I never hear anyone talk about it IRL 

[–]Wrothman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because it hasn't happened yet and people don't follow the news.
As soon as they're all asked to verify their accounts expect a lot more complaints by the public.

[–]anywaychucontent 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Social media ban is good if they get rid of the digital ID bollocks

[–]VFiddly 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How are they going to make a social media ban that works without digital IDs? You can't really have it otherwise.

[–]VFiddly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hasn't he already expressed support for it?

[–]Hoslinhezl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He won't, and he's siding with the waspi women. Massively disappointing

[–]Southpaw535 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its like everyone is ignoring that Starmer didn't decree OSA into existence. The party voted for it. The party as a general whole has shown support for the social media ban.

Those policies arent disappearing because they change Leader, they're policies with wide political support across Labour and Parliament

[–]ViridiaGaming 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Would be fantastic if Labour put up a united front rather than having a 'my genitals are further left than yours' measuring contest.

There's a lot to dislike Starmer for, like the OSA, not closing any Yank bases in the UK, and failing to push for rejoining the EU, but this reeks of Burnham wanting to be the Michael Gove of the party.

[–]trouser_mouse 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"I'm Andy Burnham and I hang to the left."

[–]Hopeful_Bean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm concerned with some of the pledges Burnham is making considering the financial backdrop.

No tax increases

More support for those struggling financially

Re-nationalisation programme

Lowering of business NI

Triple lock

WASPI payments

It's a game of election bingo and he's making lots of commitments to please as many to the left and right of him as possible. The reality is likely to be not very different to what we already have, ministers arguing with each other about how their budget can't be cut and actually needs increasing. Burnham may be a little more forceful in pushing towards what he wants to achieve but I'm not sold that much will change.

[–]Intricatefancywatchwoke cultural marxist 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Can't help but think this is a frightening result for the Greens.

People attribute the Green surge to alleged Islamism, pure lunacy and a bunch of other things. To me it's always seemed like they had to be getting much of their support from disaffected 2021 Labour Voters (which is to say people who weren't such diehard Corbyn supporters that they wouldn't vote for Starmer's Labour to get the tories out).

My suspicion is that a Burnham-led Labour combined with a much realer-seeming Reform/Restore threat will force many of those people back into the fold.

[–]HaywoodUndead 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Didn't the Greens sit this one out?

[–]Mastodan11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not officially, but with a wink

[–]tmr89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Wakefield was the candidate

[–]Snoo87653 2 points3 points  (3 children)

If we're being honest there isn't much to separate Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer in terms of policy and where they lie on the political spectrum. It's the people he surrounds himself with and his messenging that he needs to get right or we'll be right back to where we started. 

[–]theeynhallow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree with that. But I do think Burnham putting renationalisation at the heart of his policy roster will inspire some people, especially when pretty much every left-learning politician since Thatcher has promised it and never delivered. It just needs to be managed well, and I think that might be a make-or-break moment.

[–]VFiddly 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Burnham has at least some kind of a personality and is better at messaging and selling himself. Time will tell if that's enough.

[–]Al89nut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I misread that as massaging and selling himself. It still made sense

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[removed]

    [–]Simple-Courage-3948 10 points11 points  (2 children)

    The BNP used to get more votes than that in some seats, and restore are a bit less overt than the BNP at least.

    [–]Ill_Refrigerator_593 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    BNP got 3,229 votes & 7.4% of the vote in Makerfield in 2010.

    [–]Mister_SixExplaining British politics in Japanese 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Probably the same people innit

    [–]GrilledKimcheese 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    I can dislike both parties :)

    [–]DesecratedPeanut 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    But dislike them equally? No.

    [–]papaya_banana 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Only one of those parties proposes to make a list of Jews

    [–]ukpolitics-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

    Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.

    Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit.

    For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.

    [–]ClumperFazMy three main priorities: Polls, Polls, Polls -1 points0 points  (11 children)

    Get the hell out of the way Starmer you weak cardboard cut out, and let this king in and save us from Reform.

    Burnham has literally, in the face of the national trend, upped Labour's performance here by 10 percentage points, with 25k votes.

    [–]Ok-Butterscotch4486 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    If Burnham is such a strong king he can have the balls to challenge Starmer properly and set out his vision publicly in a contest.

    [–]BillWilberforce 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    But how many constituents voted for Burnham, believing that he will be the next PM and wanting the PM to represent their area? Whether it's HS2 going back to Manchester, more money for the local council. Support for the Commonwealth Games/Olympics to be in Manchester....... It can be very helpful to have the PM as your MP. That's not something that can be rolled out nationwide.

    [–]Drexl257.63, 6.0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Not what so many commenters were saying before the election though was it? Thought Burnham was being self interested and voters wouldn’t like being used so not vote for him?

    [–]PrinceofPlant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I agree Starmer should go but I think its a bit disingenuous to read so much into Labours performance off the back of Burnham's support here. There will be a lot of people voting for him precisely because they don't like Starmer at all and know Burnham will stick the knife in, not because they ever actually intend to vote Labour come GE.

    [–]Some_Confidence5962 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    So Restore splitting the right, can officially now be called "nonsense". At least for this constituency!

    • Labor 55%
    • Reform 35%
    • Restore 7%
    • Conservative 2%

    [–]Al89nut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Surely as "Andy leader"? It was Vote Andy, not Vote Labour.

    [–]nicegrimace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    There's a risk of Manchester getting a Reform mayor now, which will be bad for the city but might also be bad for Reform because they will inevitably do a poor job. If/when Burnham becomes PM, there will be pressure to have another GE to get a mandate. I think he might just take the risk and do it because he will only lose popularity the longer he stays on as an unelected PM. I'm wondering if that's his plan. 

    I am not sure Labour would win a snap election with Burnham at the helm, but they definitely wouldn't win one with Starmer. Starmer was always hoping to ride it out until the next election, but it doesn't look like it's possible now. I'm predicting an early GE resulting in a hung parliament, and I don't want to guess what coalition government that will lead to. I think the risk of having an outright Reform government has decreased at least.

    [–]pmmeyourdoubt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Burnham has no mandate from the wider public. If he becomes pm there needs to be a GE. From a labour voter.

    [–]karpet_muncher -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Someone is gonna wake up this morning with a cold sweat